Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

Transcription

1 Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

2 New Developments for SUSY Higgses Sven Heinemeyer, IFCA (CSIC, Santander) Heidelberg, 06/ Why it is not the SM Higgs 2. Higgs bosons in the MSSM 3....at the LHC and Beyond 4. Conclusions Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

3 1. Why it is not the SM Higgs Fact I: We have a discovery! 0 Local p ATLAS s = 7 TeV: Ldt = fb -1 s = 8 TeV: Ldt = fb Obs. Exp. ±1 σ m H [GeV] 0σ 1σ 2σ 3σ 4σ 5σ 6σ Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

4 Fact II: The SM cannot be the ultimate theory! Some facts: 1. gravity is not included 2. the hierarchy problem 3. Dark Matter is not included 4. neutrino masses are not included 5. anomalous magnetic moment of the muon shows a 4σ discrepancy Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

5 Fact I & II: We have a discovery! The SM cannot be the ultimate theory! Conclusion: It cannot be the SM Higgs! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

6 Fact I & II: We have a discovery! The SM cannot be the ultimate theory! Conclusion: It cannot be the SM Higgs! Q: Does the BSM physics have any (relevant) impact on the Higgs? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

7 Fact I & II: We have a discovery! The SM cannot be the ultimate theory! Conclusion: It cannot be the SM Higgs! Q: Does the BSM physics have any (relevant) impact on the Higgs? A: check changed properties A: check for additional Higgs bosons Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

8 Which model should we focus on? Some recent measurements: top quark mass Higgs boson mass Higgs boson couplings Dark Matter (properties) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

9 Which model should we focus on? Some recent measurements: top quark mass Higgs boson mass Higgs boson couplings Dark Matter (properties) Simple SUSY models predicted correctly: top quark mass Higgs boson mass Higgs boson couplings Dark Matter (properties) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

10 Which model should we focus on? Some recent measurements: top quark mass Higgs boson mass Higgs boson couplings Dark Matter (properties) Simple SUSY models predicted correctly: top quark mass Higgs boson mass Higgs boson couplings Dark Matter (properties) good motivation to look at SUSY! :-) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

11 2. Higgs bosons in the MSSM: Superpartners for Standard Model particles Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

12 The simplest case: MSSM with real paremeters Enlarged Higgs sector: Two Higgs doublets H 1 = H 2 = H1 1 H1 2 H1 2 H 2 2 = = v 1 +(φ 1 +iχ 1 )/ 2 φ 1 φ + 2 v 2 +(φ 2 +iχ 2 )/ 2 V = m 2 1 H 1 H 1 +m 2 2 H 2 H 2 m 2 12 (ǫ abh a 1 Hb 2 +h.c.) physical states: h 0,H 0,A 0,H ± Goldstone bosons: G 0,G ± + g 2 +g 2 (H 1 H 1 H 2 H 2 ) 2 + g2 H 1 H 2 2 }{{ 8 }}{{} 2 gauge couplings, in contrast to SM m h M Z Input parameters: (to be determined experimentally) tanβ = v 2 v 1, MA 2 = m2 12 (tanβ +cotβ) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

13 The lightest MSSM Higgs boson MSSM predicts upper bound on M h : tree-level bound: m h < M Z, excluded by LEP Higgs searches! Large radiative corrections: Yukawa couplings: em t 2M W s W, em 2 t M W s W,... Dominant one-loop corrections: M 2 h G µm 4 t log ( m t 1 m t 2 m 2 t The MSSM Higgs sector is connected to all other sector via loop corrections (especially to the scalar top sector) Present status of M h prediction in the MSSM: Complete 1L, almost complete 2L available, LL+NLL resummed,... ) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

14 t sector of the MSSM: Stop mass matrix M 2 t = M 2 t L +m 2 t +DT t 1 m t X t θ t m 2 t 1 0 m t X t M 2 t R +m 2 t +DT t 2 0 m 2 t 2 with X t = A t µ/tanβ mixing important in stop sector! Simplifying abbreviation: M SUSY, M S := M t L = M t R Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

15 Upper bound on M h in the MSSM: Unconstrained MSSM : M A, tanβ, 5 parameters in t b sector, µ, m g, M 2 M h < 135 GeV for m t = 173.2±0.9GeV and m t < O(few TeV) (including theoretical uncertainties from unknown higher orders) clear prediction for the LHC Obtained with: FeynHiggs [T. Hahn, S.H., W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, G. Weiglein 98 15] all Higgs masses, couplings, BRs, XSs (easy to link, easy to use :-) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

16 Upper bound on M h in the MSSM: Unconstrained MSSM : M A, tanβ, 5 parameters in t b sector, µ, m g, M 2 M h < 135 GeV Note : 125 < 135! for m t = 173.2±0.9GeV and m t < O(few TeV) (including theoretical uncertainties from unknown higher orders) clear prediction for the LHC Obtained with: FeynHiggs [T. Hahn, S.H., W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, G. Weiglein 98 15] all Higgs masses, couplings, BRs, XSs (easy to link, easy to use :-) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

17 The embarrasing situation: The Higgs mass accuracy in the MSSM: Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

18 The embarrasing situation: The Higgs mass accuracy in the MSSM: Experiment: ATLAS: CMS: combined: M exp h M exp h M exp h = ±0.37±0.18 GeV = ±0.27±0.15 GeV = ±0.21±0.11 GeV Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

19 The embarrasing situation: The Higgs mass accuracy in the MSSM: Experiment: ATLAS: CMS: combined: M exp h M exp h M exp h = ±0.37±0.18 GeV = ±0.27±0.15 GeV = ±0.21±0.11 GeV Theory: δm theo h 3 GeV Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

20 The embarrasing situation: The Higgs mass accuracy in the MSSM: Experiment: ATLAS: CMS: combined: M exp h M exp h M exp h = ±0.37±0.18 GeV = ±0.27±0.15 GeV = ±0.21±0.11 GeV Theory: δm theo h 3 GeV Theory prediction must be improved to match the experimental accuracy! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

21 The embarrasing situation: The Higgs mass accuracy in the MSSM: Experiment: ATLAS: CMS: combined: M exp h M exp h M exp h = ±0.37±0.18 GeV = ±0.27±0.15 GeV = ±0.21±0.11 GeV Theory: δm theo h 3 GeV Theory prediction must be improved to match the experimental accuracy! dedicated working group has been formed to take care...(kuts) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

22 Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

23 Possible (likely?) omplication: The MSSM Higgs sector with CP violation H 1 = H 2 = H1 1 H1 2 H1 2 H 2 2 = = v 1 +(φ 1 +iχ 1 )/ 2 φ 1 φ + 2 v 2 +(φ 2 +iχ 2 )/ 2 e iξ V = m 2 1 H 1 H 1 +m 2 2 H 2 H 2 m 2 12 (ǫ abh a 1 Hb 2 +h.c.) physical states: h 0,H 0,A 0,H ± + g 2 +g 2 (H 1 H 1 H 2 H 2 ) 2 + g2 H 1 H 2 2 }{{ 8 }}{{} 2 gauge couplings, in contrast to SM 2 CP-violating phases: ξ, arg(m 12 ) can be set/rotated to zero Input parameters: (to be determined experimentally) tanβ = v 2 v 1, M 2 H ± Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

24 The Higgs sector of the cmssm at the loop-level: Complex parameters enter via loop corrections: µ : Higgsino mass parameter A t,b,τ : trilinear couplings X t,b,τ = A t,b,τ µ {cotβ,tanβ} complex M 1,2 : gaugino mass parameter (one phase can be eliminated) M 3 : gluino mass parameter can induce CP-violating effects Result: with (A,H,h) (h 3,h 2,h 1 ) m h3 > m h2 > m h1 strong changes in Higgs couplings to SM gauge bosons and fermions see Sebastian Paßehr s talk this afternoon! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

25 CPV effects on Higgs boson searches: CPX: benchmark scenario in the cmssm [M. Carena, J. Ellis, A. Pilaftsis, C. Wagner 00] LEP Higgs production cross sections: [LEPHiggsWG 06] σ (10-2 pb) H 1 H 2 bb bb H 1 H 2 H 1 H 1 H 1 bb bb bb H 1 Z bb Z H 2 Z H 1 H 1 Z bb bb Z s =202 GeV tanβ Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

26 Results of LEP searches in CPX scenario: [LEPHiggsWG 06] m t = GeV m t = GeV tanβ (a) Excluded by LEP tanβ (b) Excluded by LEP CPX Theoretically Inaccessible 1 CPX Theoretically Inaccessible m H1 (GeV/c 2 ) m H1 (GeV/c 2 ) The LEP analysis showed unexcluded holes in the m h1 tanβ plane masses below 62 GeV ruled out, but above...? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

27 3....at the LHC and beyond Can we learn something on SUSY from the Higgs mass measurement? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

28 3....at the LHC and beyond Can we learn something on SUSY from the Higgs mass measurement? A simple exercise on stop masses: Dominant one-loop corrections: M 2 h G µm 4 t log ( m t 1 m t 2 m 2 t ) The MSSM Higgs sector is connected to all other sector via loop corrections (especially to the scalar top sector) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

29 3....at the LHC and beyond Can we learn something on SUSY from the Higgs mass measurement? A simple exercise on stop masses: Dominant one-loop corrections: M 2 h G µm 4 t log ( m t 1 m t 2 m 2 t ) The MSSM Higgs sector is connected to all other sector via loop corrections (especially to the scalar top sector) only certain combinations of stop parameters are compatible with the Higgs discovery. clear prediction for the LHC? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

30 3....at the LHC and beyond Can we learn something on SUSY from the Higgs mass measurement? A simple exercise on stop masses: Dominant one-loop corrections: M 2 h G µm 4 t log ( m t 1 m t 2 m 2 t ) The MSSM Higgs sector is connected to all other sector via loop corrections (especially to the scalar top sector) only certain combinations of stop parameters are compatible with the Higgs discovery. clear prediction for the LHC? For this exercise make sure: use the best available Higgs mass calculation! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

31 3....at the LHC and beyond Can we learn something on SUSY from the Higgs mass measurement? A simple exercise on stop masses: Dominant one-loop corrections: M 2 h G µm 4 t log ( m t 1 m t 2 m 2 t ) The MSSM Higgs sector is connected to all other sector via loop corrections (especially to the scalar top sector) only certain combinations of stop parameters are compatible with the Higgs discovery. clear prediction for the LHC? For this exercise make sure: use the best available Higgs mass calculation! FeynHiggs! :-) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

32 Stop masses: [P. Bechtle, S.H., O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, L. Zeune 15 PRELIMINARY] M h = 125±3 GeV : best-fit point red: χ 2 < 2.3 orange: χ 2 < 5.99 blue: all points HiggsBounds allowed gray: all scan points M h 125 GeV requires large X t and/or large M SUSY Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

33 Stop masses: [P. Bechtle, S.H., O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, L. Zeune 15 PRELIMINARY] M h = 125±3 GeV : best-fit point red: χ 2 < 2.3 orange: χ 2 < 5.99 blue: all points HiggsBounds allowed gray: all scan points light and heavy stops compatible with M h 125 GeV Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

34 Stop masses for M h = 125 GeV [A. Arbey et al., 11] M h 125 GeV requires large X t and/or large M SUSY no clear prediction for the LHC! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

35 (MSSM) Higgs limit setting at the LHC and beyond Two complementary methods for searches and limits: 1. obtain model independent limits on cross sections and branching ratios What is interesting to look out for? How to take the Higgs discovery into account? 2. obtain limits in representative benchmark scenarios Which constraints should be taken into account? Which not? And why? some (representative?) examples Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

36 The Vanilla solution: the discovery is interpreted as the light CP-even Higgs measure its couplings, any deviation from the SM? search for additional heavier Higgs bosons re-interpretation of SM Higgs searches? special issues for heavy Higgs phenomenology Higgs SUSY decays? Higgs production from SUSY decays? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

37 Coupling measurement: [P. Bechtle, S.H., O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein 14] BR(H inv.) 2σ 1σ 2σ κ V 1σ 2σ κ u 1σ 2σ κ d 1σ Very general model: κ V,κ u,κ d,κ l,κ g,κ γ,br(h inv.) using HiggsSignals with 80 channels from ATLAS, CMS, CDF, DØ κ l κ g κ γ 2σ 1σ 2σ 1σ 2σ 1σ Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

38 Beyond LHC: HL-LHC vs. ILC in the most general κ framework: [P. Bechtle, S.H., O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein 14] assumption: BR(H NP) = BR(H inv.) BR(H inv.) κw κz κu κd κl κg κγ HiggsSignals HL LHC (S2, opt.) ILC 250 ILC 500 ILC 1000 ILC 1000 (LumiUp) strong improvement with the ILC! deviations from SM? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

39 Re-interpretation of SM Higgs search results: g 2 hvv = sin2 (β α)g 2 HVV,SM, g2 HVV = cos2 (β α)g 2 HVV,SM some coupling strength could remain for the heavy Higgs go ahead for stronger limits! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

40 Search (interpretation) in new benchmark scenarios: [LHCHXSWG M. Carena, S.H., O. Stål, C. Wagner, G. Weiglein, 13] designed to have M h 125±3 GeV and to reproduce rate measurements designed to exhibit certain features of Higgs phenomenology light Higgs phenomenlogy heavy Higgs phenomenology Not taken into account on purpose: Flavor contraints Precision observables Dark Matter... can all be avoided easily by small model modification that do not change the Higgs phenomenology do not overconstrain yourself! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

41 m mod+ h scenario: m t = GeV, M SUSY = 1000 GeV, µ = 200 GeV, M 2 = 200 GeV, X OS t = 1.5M SUSY A b = A τ = A t, m g = 1500 GeV, m l 3 = 1000 GeV. M h 125 GeV nearly everywhere Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

42 m mod+ h scenario: effect of non-sm Higgs decays: strong impact from H/A χ 0 i χ0 j, χ± k χ l disover heavy Higgses and SUSY at the same time! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

43 Higgs production from SUSY decays: ATLAS and CMS are now also searching for pp χ ± 1 χ0 2 W± χ 0 1 χ0 2 W± χ 0 1 h χ0 1 W± χ 0 1 b b χ 0 1 Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

44 Phenomenology at very low tanβ: look at the m max h scenario: m t = GeV, M SUSY = 1000 GeV, µ = 200 GeV, M 2 = 200 GeV, X OS t = 2M SUSY A b = A τ = A t, m g = 1500 GeV, m l 3 = 1000 GeV. tanβ > 4 for M SUSY < few TeV But what happens for M SUSY > 10 TeV? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

45 Example scenario: low-tb-high [S.H. (LHCHXSWG??) 14] M SUSY and X t adjusted to give M h 125 GeV everywhere low-tb-high M h < < M h < < M h < 124 tanβ < M h < < M h < < M h < < M h M A [GeV] lower tan β values possible! Relevant? new relevant decay channels! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

46 Example scenario: low-tb-high : H hh [S.H. (LHCHXSWG??) 15] M SUSY and X t adjusted to give M h 125 GeV everywhere low-tb-high 0.8 < BR(H -> hh) < < BR(H -> hh) < < BR(H -> hh) < < BR(H -> hh) < < BR(H -> hh) < < BR(H -> hh) < < BR(H -> hh) < < BR(H -> hh) < 0.2 tanβ important at low tanβ M A [GeV] Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

47 The exotic solution: the discovery is interpreted as the heavy CP-even Higgs In principle also possilbe: M h < 125 GeV M H 125 GeV Consequences: all Higgs bosons very light easy(?) discovery of additional Higgs bosons at the LHC Constraints: direct searches for the lightest CP-even Higgs direct searches for the heavy neutral Higgses direct searches for the charged Higgses flavor constraints (BR(B s µ + µ ) etc.) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

48 The exotic solution: the discovery is interpreted as the heavy CP-even Higgs In principle also possilbe: M h < 125 GeV M H 125 GeV Consequences: all Higgs bosons very light easy(?) discovery of additional Higgs bosons at the LHC Constraints: direct searches for the lightest CP-even Higgs direct searches for the heavy neutral Higgses direct searches for the charged Higgses flavor constraints (BR(B s µ + µ ) etc.) original scenario: low-m H Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

49 The exotic solution: the discovery is interpreted as the heavy CP-even Higgs In principle also possilbe: M h < 125 GeV M H 125 GeV Consequences: all Higgs bosons very light easy(?) discovery of additional Higgs bosons at the LHC Constraints: direct searches for the lightest CP-even Higgs direct searches for the heavy neutral Higgses direct searches for the charged Higgses flavor constraints (BR(B s µ + µ ) etc.) original scenario: low-m H ruled out by charged Higgs searches stay tuned for updated scenario! :-) Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

50 The general possibility: the discovered Higgs is the second-lightest one more contrived in the MSSM with real parameters easier (?) possible in the MSSM with complex parameters easier (!) possible in the NMSSM light Higgs can be singlet like can more easily escape detection Is such a light Higgs detectable at the LHC? h 2 h 1 h 1 possible, but strongly suppressed for M h1 > 63 GeV so far few (and weak ) LHC searches for a Higgs with M h1 < 100 GeV Possible: SUSY SUSY h 1, e.g. χ 0 2 χ0 1 h 1 Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

51 LHC Higgs searches below 100 GeV: crucial to cover extended Higgs sectors needed to re-check LEP exclusions ( 2.xσ excess around 98 GeV) S (a) LEP s = GeV SM branching ratios Observed Expected for background Best/only channel? h 1 γγ?? m H1 (GeV/c 2 ) we cannot encourage you enough to perform this search! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

52 4. Conclusinos LHC: we have a HIGGS DISCOVERY!!! M H 125.1±0.2 GeV It is impossible that it is SM Higgs Impact of BSM physics on Higgs sector?? impact on couplings of the discovered Higgs search for additional Higgs bosons Implications in the rmssm, cmssm, NMSSM The discovered Higgs could be the lightest or second-lightest Higgs of each model various, different implications Searches/interpretation via general limits benchmark scenarios always take into account the discovery (mass, properties) rmssm, M H 125 GeV: disfavored by charged Higgs searches but well possible in other models (cmssm, NMSSM,...) search for new states above and below 125 GeV Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

53 Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

54 Back-up Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

55 Beyond LHC: HL-LHC vs. ILC in the most general κ framework: [P. Bechtle, S.H., O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein 14] assumption: κ V 1 BR(H NP) κw κz κu κd κl κg κγ HiggsSignals HL LHC (S2, opt.) ILC 250 ILC 500 ILC 1000 ILC 1000 (LumiUp) strong improvement with the ILC! deviations from SM? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

56 Beyond LHC: HL-LHC vs. ILC in the most general κ framework: [P. Bechtle, S.H., O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein 14] no theory assumptions, full fit BR(H NP) κw κz κu κd κl κg κγ ILC 250 ILC 500 ILC ILC 1000 (LumiUp) HiggsSignals high ILC precision, not possible at the LHC deviations from SM? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

57 Beyond LHC: HL-LHC vs. ILC in the most general κ framework: [P. Bechtle, S.H., O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein 14] no theory assumptions, full fit BR(H NP) κw κz κu κd κl κg κγ HiggsSignals HL LHC (Γ tot free) HL LHC ILC 250 (σzh total) HL LHC ILC 250 HL LHC ILC 500 HL LHC ILC HL LHC ILC 1000 (LumiUp) strong improvement with the ILC! deviations from SM? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

58 b effects on b b H/A b b: b = 2α s 3π m gµ tanβ I(m b 1,m b 2,m g )+ α t 4π A tµ tanβ I(m t 1,m t 2,µ) Additional factors wrt. the SM: σ(b bh/a) BR(H/A b b) tanβ2 (1+ b ) µ = GeV µ = -200 GeV µ = +200 GeV µ = GeV m h -mod µ = GeV µ = -200 GeV µ = +200 GeV µ = GeV m h -mod tan β 30 tan β M A [GeV] M A [GeV] phenomenology can depend on new parameters! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

59 Where is the light Higgs in the heavy Higgs case? low M h values, strongly reduced couplings Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

60 low-m H scenario: m t = GeV, M A = 110 GeV, M SUSY = 1500 GeV, M 2 = 200 GeV, X OS t 2.45M SUSY A b = A τ = A t, m g = 1500 GeV, m l 3 = 1000 GeV. M H 125 GeV can in principle be realized Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

61 low-m H scenario: m t = GeV, M A = 110 GeV, M SUSY = 1500 GeV, M 2 = 200 GeV, X OS t 2.45M SUSY A b = A τ = A t, m g = 1500 GeV, m l 3 = 1000 GeV. Interesting prospects also for the charged Higgs searches Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

62 Latest ATLAS results for charged Higgs searches: [ATLAS 13] + B t bh 10-1 ATLAS Preliminary Data 2012 Observed CLs s = 8 TeV Expected ± 1σ ± 2σ Ldt = 19.5 fb [GeV] model independent limits! + m H Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

63 Latest ATLAS results for charged Higgs searches: [ATLAS 13] tan β Median expected exclusion Observed exclusion 95% CL Observed +1σ theory Observed -1σ theory Expected exclusion 2011 Observed exclusion 2011 ATLAS Preliminary max s=8 TeV m h Ldt = 19.5 fb -1 Data 2012 τ+jets [GeV] + m H exclusion of light M H ± in the m max h scenario!...low-m H? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

64 Application of charged Higgs limits on low-m H scenario: [HiggsBounds 4.1] that (particular incarnation of the) low-m H scenario is excluded? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

65 Application of charged Higgs limits on low-m H scenario: [HiggsBounds 4.1] that (particular incarnation of the) low-m H scenario is excluded? Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

66 Analysis of χ 0 2 χ0 1 h 1 in the cmssm: [A. Fowler, G. Weiglein 09] Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

67 Recent FeynHiggs update: some numerical results [FeynHiggs ] Parameters: M S = m t 1 m t 2 M A = 1000 GeV µ = 1000 GeV M 2 = 1000 GeV m g = 1600 GeV tanβ = 10 Vary M S, X t to analyze effects Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

68 M h (X t /M S ): 145 M SUSY = 1 TeV FeynHiggs [FeynHiggs2.10.0] M SUSY = 2 TeV 140 M SUSY = 5 TeV M SUSY = 10 TeV 135 M SUSY = 15 TeV M SUSY = 20 TeV M h [GeV] X t /M S [GeV] increase with M S, maxima at X t /M S = ±2 Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

69 M h (M S ) for various approximations: FH295 3-loop 4-loop FeynHiggs [FeynHiggs2.10.0] loop 6-loop 7-loop LL+NLL X t /M S = 2 M h [GeV] X t = M S [GeV] 3-loop good for M S < 2 TeV, 7-loop: 1 GeV for M S = 20 TeV Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),

70 M h (M S ) compared with H3m: loop, O(α t α s 2 ) FeynHiggs [FeynHiggs2.10.0] loop full LL+NLL H3m A 0 = 0, tanβ = M h [GeV] M S [GeV] 3-loop O ( α 2 t α s,α 3 t ) beyond 3-loop important for precise Mh prediction! Sven Heinemeyer WIN (Heidelberg),